As @red55 said the signal difference between Hitler and the others is that Hitler specifically ordered the slaughter of his own people as well as several specific other populations most notably the Jews. While Genghis Khan slaughtered in droves he and this descendent so established an empire that lasted hundreds of years. More than anything IMO Ceasar, Alexander, Khan and even Napolean were historically great men whose accomplishments over their entire lives and made history. Hitler is a footnote in the 20th century eclipsed by Churchill (the greatest of the century), FDR, and Lenin.
Hitler will be remembered as the standard bearer of evil for a long, long time. He was a ranting madman but he set in motion the German war machine and twisted the efficiency of the German industial complex to building death camps and transportation systems with the same cold logic and efficiency they would have applied to building a Mercedes factory. A veritable assembly line of death.
Its all a matter of perspective... Ancient conquerors are not judged by the same standards as modern dictators. We seem to expect modern man to be more civilized than the ancients... we couldn't be more wrong.
big difference is the fact that to the victors go the spoils. if the Germans had won or at least not completely lost ww2...then maybe. as they did lose....no... he is written into history books, as the spawn of Satan. and rightly so. better question though is why did the Japanese get a pass for their actions in nanking when their actions were just as henious as the Germans.
QUOTE="Bengal B, post: 1473440, member: 513"]A lot of Japanese were hung for war crimes just like the Nazis at Nuremberg[/QUOTE] sure but they are not universally shamed because of it
